- This topic has 174 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I wouldn’t trust Psychedelic Funk’s Group 3 win. That was against a bunch of old cuddies in the main and on heavy ground. He’d be a 100/1 shot in the QEII.
Not all Group races are strong. Take Caravaggio for example. When he won the Group 2 Flying Five the commentator was having multiple orgasms, screaming “Caravaggio Is Back!”. I was shaking my head with the horse being odds on against a bunch moderate sprinters and a 50/1 shot being runner up. Despite several running in Listed company next time, nothing has won from the Flying Five in 14 starts. I doubt Caravaggio ran to the 116 rating awarded that day. It’s inevitable that when a horse runs a better horse relatively closely, the view is taken that the lesser horse has improved, rather than pondering if the winner ran to its mark.
Alphabet went up 17 lbs to 109 for running her stablemate to a length but her last two runs were 81 and 99. It seems quite clear that the better the race in terms of strength in depth, the lower she runs to. Interestingly she was given 109 for running behind Quiet Reflection prior to her run in France but that race has not worked out at all well and it may well be that Quiet Reflection won without being anywhere near her best. It is for that reason that I see Quiet Reflection as a big lay in the Sprint.
I reckon Psychedelic Funk’s Group 3 does not amount to much, we will see.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Psychedelic Funk isn’t the crux of the case for Beat The Bank in the QEII. Just one of the smaller indicators that Beat The Bank is up to the task, along with sectionals, collateral form and ratings.
I wouldn’t trust Psychedelic Funk’s Group 3 win. That was against a bunch of old cuddies in the main and on heavy ground. He’d be a 100/1 shot in the QEII.
That Group 2 Boomerang Stakes form isn’t reliable, Steve. In a slowly run race, Ryan Moore tried to weave a passage from the back of the pack on Sir John Lavery. Second and third (Psycheselic Funk) both flattered in relation to winner and Sir John. Latter is a genuine Group 2 horse and so is Suedois.
He deserves his chance no doubt but the price is laughable
He was 11/8 to beat that field in the Joel Stakes if his sectionals were that good previously why wasn’t he odds on
Ribchester would of been 1/10 in that fieldYes, Nathan. I dare say Ribchester would’ve “been 1/10 to beat that field”, and had Ribchester beaten them by 6 lengths (just one length more than Beat The Bank) everyone would have said he’d ran to form. ie There isn’t as much between the two as you might think. Not so simple as Multiple Group 1 winner V Zero Group 1 winner.
@ 9/4 (30.8%) and 9/2 (18.2%) 11/10 combined… I’d say it should be a shade of odds-on one of the pair winning. Currently a small amount of value in both, but a lot will depend on who now turns up. So if punters aren’t on already it may be best to wait until the day. Especially if a lot of punters may think the way some on here are.
On offical ratings their is a fair bit between them,im not the biggest ribchester fan but if you sift through current form, ribchesters rivals have won group twos, placed group 2s, placed group 1s and won a group 1…… if you run through beat the banks, theirs a listed winner?
ham,
If there’s two match races in identical conditions with exactly the same course, distance, going, jockeys, pace and times etc…
Horse A beats horse B by a length…
And then two weeks later horse A again beats horse B by a length.
Has horse A improved his form or is it the same form as previously?It does not matter how many times Ribchester runs to the same mark, he does not improve. ie Number of wins (and/or wins of who he beats) makes no difference to his form (although does for reliability). In other words if Ribchester does not improve his form in those races then his chance for this race is no greater than it would be by just winning two.
A horse does not need to win at a certain level to prove he’s capable of doing so. Distances and amount in hand at a lesser level can tell a punter this. Sir John Lavery successful in a good listed race without coming under maximum pressure by 3 lengths (call it value for a 4 lengths margin) from one who is herself a listed winner. That 4 lengths margin proves he’s at least Group 3 class and probably capable of winning a fair Group 2 standard event…
…And Beat The Bank didn’t just beat The Lavery, he obliterated the Irish horse. Had it been up to a couple of lengths it would be fair to argue BTB might be only strong Group 2 class. But it wasn’t 2 lengths it was 5.BTB still probably has to improve to beat Ribchester. But Take the Jersey out – only disappointmenting run on the firm side and also scoped dirty afterwards… And Andrew Balding’s three year old has a record of relentless progression There’s a strong possibility or even probability of more improvement on Saturday… And more improvement could see him topple even a top form Ribchester.
Value Is EverythingPsychedelic Funk isn’t the crux of the case for Beat The Bank in the QEII. Just one of the smaller indicators that Beat The Bank is up to the task, along with sectionals, collateral form and ratings.
You’ve seen fit to use it, I am merely casting doubt on it’s value. If it’s of no relevance, why mention it?
I was also making a point about the handicapping that always seems obsessed with assuming the winner ran to its best. We saw Caravaggio taking time to reel in the leaders in the Commonwealth and generally looking like 5F isn’t his best trip. There was enough reason to feel that he was not on the top of his game that day.
On handicapping in general, Saxon Warrior was awarded 112 for winning the Beresford. Kew Gardens was 4th that day and won the Zetland in good style next time. The 5th horse Riyazan went on to win a Listed Race next time as well. The Handicapper’s reaction? He DROPS Saxon Warrior 2 lbs
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I’ve nibbled at the 10/1 on offer about Al Wukair. I still believe we have yet to see the best of him and maybe this is the race we’ll finally see it. With many of the market principles potentially taking up other engagements he could be left with Ribchester to beat and he may struggle to give weight away to such a classy 3 year old as this.
I’m only on to the most minimum of stakes which is a shame as he looks a definite runner and is no better than 6/1 now.
I’m yet to take a proper view on this and so will wait to take a strong position Friday night. I can find positives for all here. I know Ribchester is a miler animal but can he give weight away to a host of Group 1 winning 3 year olds?
Churchill is a ground versatile dual Guineas winner who only found Ulysses too good in the Juddmonte International and can be forgiven a below-par performance in the Irish Champion. Beat The Bank has been absolutely destroying horses this year posting awesome figures, Al Wukair has been threatening to win a race like this all year and Thunder Snow already has.
I wouldn’t trust Psychedelic Funk’s Group 3 win. That was against a bunch of old cuddies in the main and on heavy ground. He’d be a 100/1 shot in the QEII.
That Group 2 Boomerang Stakes form isn’t reliable, Steve. In a slowly run race, Ryan Moore tried to weave a passage from the back of the pack on Sir John Lavery. Second and third (Psycheselic Funk) both flattered in relation to winner and Sir John. Latter is a genuine Group 2 horse and so is Suedois.
He deserves his chance no doubt but the price is laughable
He was 11/8 to beat that field in the Joel Stakes if his sectionals were that good previously why wasn’t he odds on
Ribchester would of been 1/10 in that fieldYes, Nathan. I dare say Ribchester would’ve “been 1/10 to beat that field”, and had Ribchester beaten them by 6 lengths (just one length more than Beat The Bank) everyone would have said he’d ran to form. ie There isn’t as much between the two as you might think. Not so simple as Multiple Group 1 winner V Zero Group 1 winner.
@ 9/4 (30.8%) and 9/2 (18.2%) 11/10 combined… I’d say it should be a shade of odds-on one of the pair winning. Currently a small amount of value in both, but a lot will depend on who now turns up. So if punters aren’t on already it may be best to wait until the day. Especially if a lot of punters may think the way some on here are.
On offical ratings their is a fair bit between them,im not the biggest ribchester fan but if you sift through current form, ribchesters rivals have won group twos, placed group 2s, placed group 1s and won a group 1…… if you run through beat the banks, theirs a listed winner?
ham,
If there’s two match races in identical conditions with exactly the same course, distance, going, jockeys, pace and times etc…
Horse A beats horse B by a length…
And then two weeks later horse A again beats horse B by a length.
Has horse A improved his form or is it the same form as previously?It does not matter how many times Ribchester runs to the same mark, he does not improve. ie Number of wins (and/or wins of who he beats) makes no difference to his form (although does for reliability). In other words if Ribchester does not improve his form in those races then his chance for this race is no greater than it would be by just winning two.
A horse does not need to win at a certain level to prove he’s capable of doing so. Distances and amount in hand at a lesser level can tell a punter this. Sir John Lavery successful in a good listed race without coming under maximum pressure by 3 lengths (call it value for a 4 lengths margin) from one who is herself a listed winner. That 4 lengths margin proves he’s at least Group 3 class and probably capable of winning a fair Group 2 standard event…
…And Beat The Bank didn’t just beat The Lavery, he obliterated the Irish horse. Had it been up to a couple of lengths it would be fair to argue BTB might be only strong Group 2 class. But it wasn’t 2 lengths it was 5.BTB still probably has to improve to beat Ribchester. But Take the Jersey out – only disappointmenting run on the firm side and also scoped dirty afterwards… And Andrew Balding’s three year old has a record of relentless progression There’s a strong possibility or even probability of more improvement on Saturday… And more improvement could see him topple even a top form Ribchester.
I understand the point your trying to make, but all that matters is BTB is improving, but hes going to have to improve another 7lbs to get near ribchester nevermind beat him, he beat a listed/group 3 horse as he liked, the form of the race hasnt worked out that well although not terribly, jallota won well, consistency is key in your point regarding ribchester, you can be assured hes likely to run to his rating, are we assuming BTB is going to be running to a ulysses/enable rating? Are we looking at a 125+ rated horse > doubtful
Paco boy isnt exactly known for group one horses, infact galileo gold being the only group 1 horse hes sired so far if im correct? Of course that dosent mean BTB wont be a group 1 horse going forward, but 118 is a lofty rating considering what hes done and who hes beaten and his breeding isnt suggesting much
Too many negatives, always the chance he will win, if the field turns up as is, ill end up place laying him the more i look at him the more vulnerable i think he is in this bunch, ill wait until final decs to decide on that lol
Come on Steve, you’re better than that. I said Psychedelic Funk’s exploits are “one of the smaller indications”, before using other horses, speed figures and ratings to build what I think is a strong case for Beat The Bank. I’m sure Psychedelic Funk was flattered to finish ahead of Sir John Lavery in the Boomerang Stakes and I accept his G3 win was not a strong race – still I’m encouraged that the Beat The Bank collateral form has at least been boosted at pattern race level by the likes of Suedois (G1), Psychedelic Funk (G3) and Jallota (Listed). You’re twisting my words by saying ‘no relevance’. I put less importance on Psychedelic Funk than everything else, but still take some solace from him.
I’m keen to debate Beat The Bank because I’m already on and quite tempted to take a bigger position on the day. I’m looking to the best judges in here to sell me the counter argument, if there is one. I’m not looking for a niggly battle of semantics. I’ve already been disappointed by a couple of my colleagues on the subject – one just said “Beat The Bank is s**t though, isn’t he?” and left it at that.
If you can worry me with anything more concrete than picking away at Psychedelic Funk, I’m keen to hear it. You might save me a few quid!
Ham, I reckon Beat The Bank ran 120 (with a +) at Newmarket. Ribchester’s career best is only a few lbs ahead (with a squiggle in my ratings) and he has to give Beat The Bank weight. It would take a very pro-Ribchester/anti Beat The Bank reading of their form to say there is 7lbs to find, especially after weight for age.
I can’t see why there is such a price differential, personally. I’m likely to get goods odds-against for BTB in a match bet between the two and I think that’s a great spot for a deriv bet.
I’d be looking for a match bet with Churchill rather than Ribchester, myself LS. imo It’s Churchill who’s over-rated more than Ribchester.
Value Is Everythingwhy do I get the feeling that Churchill will be the one to break the record- don’t think O’Brien has any outstanding chances before this race and I reckon there will be a certain irony if the 2000 guineas winner gets him over the line
quite apart from that I fancy Churchill for this race anyway
I understand the point your trying to make, but all that matters is BTB is improving, but hes going to have to improve another 7lbs to get near ribchester nevermind beat him, he beat a listed/group 3 horse as he liked, the form of the race hasnt worked out that well although not terribly, jallota won well,
You are joking, right?
Neither winner Beat The Bank nor 2nd Sir John Lavery have run since.
3rd placed Jallota was beaten 7 1/4 lengths by Beat The Bank who was not all out to do so call it 7 3/4 lengths.
Jallota then goes and wins a listed race by 4 1/2 lengths how you say “as he liked”. So let’s say a conservative estimate – add another 2 1/4 lengths for Jallota’s ease of victory and 1/2 for Beat The Bank’s. 7.25 + 4.5 + 2.75 = So without Jallota in the race, on the Joel form Beat The Bank would’ve won that listed race by around 14 1/2 lengths.4th in the Joel was Soverign Debt, beaten 8 1/2 lengths trying to give 3 lbs more than weight for age. So call it 7 1/2 lengths. Adding 1/2 length on for ease of victory… value for 8 lengths.
Soverign Debt then ran in a Group 3. Beaten 2 1/2 lengths in a 1m1f race this time trying to give 5 lbs more than weight for age. Penalty more than cancels out the 2 1/2 lengths. So on a strict handicapping point of view, had he not carried a big penalty in that Group 3 Soverign Debt would’ve won. Would you be saying the form hadn’t worked out then? That race is a bit difficult, Monarch’s Glen won with a bit in hand, yet the first two were drawn on the favoured stand side rail.
On form through Soverign Debt, Beat The bank would’ve won that Group 3 by around 8 lengths.None of the other runners matter because they did not run anywhere near their best so are out of form and can’t be expected to run well afterwards.
Joel eems to be working out very well to me. 😉
Value Is EverythingGinger do you think Beat the bank will win mate? I might follow you in.
I’ve lost faith in my own assessments, unsurprisingly
I understand the point your trying to make, but all that matters is BTB is improving, but hes going to have to improve another 7lbs to get near ribchester nevermind beat him, he beat a listed/group 3 horse as he liked, the form of the race hasnt worked out that well although not terribly, jallota won well,
You are joking, right?
Neither winner Beat The Bank nor 2nd Sir John Lavery have run since.
3rd placed Jallota was beaten 7 1/4 lengths by Beat The Bank who was not all out to do so call it 7 3/4 lengths.
Jallota then goes and wins a listed race by 4 1/2 lengths how you say “as he liked”. So let’s say a conservative estimate – add another 2 1/4 lengths for Jallota’s ease of victory and 1/2 for Beat The Bank’s. 7.25 + 4.5 + 2.75 = So without Jallota in the race, on the Joel form Beat The Bank would’ve won that listed race by around 14 1/2 lengths.4th in the Joel was Soverign Debt, beaten 8 1/2 lengths trying to give 3 lbs more than weight for age. So call it 7 1/2 lengths. Adding 1/2 length on for ease of victory… value for 8 lengths.
Soverign Debt then ran in a Group 3. Beaten 2 1/2 lengths in a 1m1f race this time trying to give 5 lbs more than weight for age. Penalty more than cancels out the 2 1/2 lengths. So on a strict handicapping point of view, had he not carried a big penalty in that Group 3 Soverign Debt would’ve won. Would you be saying the form hadn’t worked out then? That race is a bit difficult, Monarch’s Glen won with a bit in hand, yet the first two were drawn on the favoured stand side rail.
On form through Soverign Debt, Beat The bank would’ve won that Group 3 by around 8 lengths.None of the other runners matter because they did not run anywhere near their best so are out of form and can’t be expected to run well afterwards.
Joel eems to be working out very well to me. 😉
Lol the way you accumulate how far a horse “would have won by” intrigues me, its absolute nonsense to be exact lol regardless if BTB wins on saturday it has nothing to do with how you asess this race atall, if what youv just written had any factual statistics, youd win every race….. its all assumptions
Look beat the bank may very well win (he wont LOL) BUT all my point in this is, his formline is poor, the opposition beaten is notanywhere near group 1 he has a mammoth task ahead of him if the field lines up roughly how it is just now,how you can argue against that saying how he beat lavery is good enough to even place in this, is astounding …. theirs more chance of lavery winning this than btb
If he goes and wins ill happily Congratulate his backers,
If al wukair is 6-7/1 btb should be 8/1
I’m a bit late looking through these, but even before I’d done my usual
20 video reruns, I’d pretty much decided where I was going. He’s been
well debated on here already, but I couldn’t be more impressed by
BEAT THE BANK. There’s no doubting that he has run at
a different level to some of these, none more so than RIBCHESTER and
CHURCHILL, but it’s not what he has run against that necessarily impressed
me, it was the manner in which won. If he needs to improve, and that point
is debatable, then he’s going the right way. I’ve missed the 8/1 grabbed by
some good judges (IMO), but I think 9/2 is still represents decent value.I think Beat The Bank could drift on the day given how ‘The Lads’ like to get stuck into Churchill and Ribchester being a well-known and pretty solid favourite.
Come on Steve, you’re better than that. I said Psychedelic Funk’s exploits are “one of the smaller indications”, before using other horses, speed figures and ratings to build what I think is a strong case for Beat The Bank. I’m sure Psychedelic Funk was flattered to finish ahead of Sir John Lavery in the Boomerang Stakes and I accept his G3 win was not a strong race – still I’m encouraged that the Beat The Bank collateral form has at least been boosted at pattern race level by the likes of Suedois (G1), Psychedelic Funk (G3) and Jallota (Listed). You’re twisting my words by saying ‘no relevance’. I put less importance on Psychedelic Funk than everything else, but still take some solace from him.
I’m keen to debate Beat The Bank because I’m already on and quite tempted to take a bigger position on the day. I’m looking to the best judges in here to sell me the counter argument, if there is one. I’m not looking for a niggly battle of semantics. I’ve already been disappointed by a couple of my colleagues on the subject – one just said “Beat The Bank is s**t though, isn’t he?” and left it at that.
If you can worry me with anything more concrete than picking away at Psychedelic Funk, I’m keen to hear it. You might save me a few quid!
It’s just not worth mentioning in my opinion, that’s all. I had the Funker for a wee lift earlier in the year and he ran to 66.
Beat The Bank has only ONE piece of form, that MIGHT be good enough to win it. I can’t get away from the fact that if the horse were Group 1 class, he should have stacked up something better by now. Just not enough evidence for me and I suspect he may need cut as well.
I expect Churchill to be be 3/1 2F when declared on Thursday and would imagine Beat The Bank perhaps 6/1. Al Wukair may go as low as 5/1. The Borg should see Churchill pretty well supported and I think he will go off poor value on Saturday.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I’m not being “exact”, I said “around” those distances.
You’ve got to add something for ease of victory. Yes, it’s a matter of opinion how much to add on each occasion, but you said yourself that Jalotta won “as he liked”. If you’re trying to handicap horses – as you are – ie trying to suggest Beat The Bank has a lot to find… Then surely you must give some sort of addition for “as he liked”?
Even without any additions, Beat The Bank would’ve won the Listed race by around 11 3/4 lengths and the Group 3 by 7 1/2. Both strongly suggesting he does not have “a mammoth task agead of him”.
You haven’t just guessed with Beat The Bank have you, ham?
Again, you say he only beat Lavery – but you’re missing the point – BTB beat SJL by 5 lengths. There’s plenty of room (on form) to fit plenty of good horses between BTB and SJL. You do realise that under those conditions 5 lengths means the winner has put up a performance around a stone better than the runner-up? So by you saying “he only beat Lavery”, does not do the form justice. There’s a world between beating Lavery by a head and beating him by 5 lengths.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.